With little fanfare, Congress did something good at the end of 2011. Actually, it’s not that Congress did a good thing; it’s that Congress chose to not do the wrong thing.

Amid the year-end rush and heating-up of the 2012 campaign, Congress allowed the 30-year-old federal subsidy for ethanol made from corn to expire. Not only did the 45-cents-a-gallon subsidy die, but the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil was also eliminated.

While initially supported as a way to help a fledgling industry and to reduce America’s dependence on imported oil, support for the ethanol subsidy has faded in recent years. For the past decade or longer, the ethanol subsidy came to be seen as corporate welfare for big corn growers and ethanol producers. Even environmentalists questioned its green value.

With Midwest farm incomes now strong, Congress finally ended the subsidy. And by eliminating the tariff on generally cheaper imported ethanol from Brazil, which is made from sugar cane, a second subsidy for the U.S. ethanol industry has been eliminated.

The third form of assistance supporting the ethanol industry remains, however — the federal mandate requiring that up to 15 billion gallons a year of ethanol be blended with gasoline.

The combination of the subsidy and import tariff gave U.S.-produced ethanol a nearly $1-a-gallon advantage over other biofuels.

By letting the direct corn ethanol subsidy expire, Congress will save $6 billion a year in taxpayer funds. While not a major step in taming the budget deficit, ending the subsidy is a step in the right direction.

Decades of ethanol subsidies caused vast amounts of cropland to be diverted to corn for ethanol production. An estimated 40 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is now used for ethanol. The corn-for-fuel led to higher corn prices, which have contributed to higher prices for food, caused by ranchers having to pay more for the corn they use to feed chickens, pigs and cattle.

Taxpayers frustrated over the three decades of ethanol subsidies have reason to celebrate the death of the wasteful corporate subsidy and anti-free trade and import tariff on cheaper ethanol from Brazil.

The biofuel markets will continue to evolve with scaled-up projects advancing the use of algae as a biofuel feedstock and cellulosic ethanol, which uses any plant product from corn husks and stalks to wood chips and switchgrass.

To further the development of biofuels, Congress should have years ago scaled back the dollars subsidizing ethanol and directed some of that funding to support basic research in biofuels and other renewables.

While on the topic of unnecessary and costly corporate subsides, Congress should next target the oil industry. According to the New York Times, the oil industry enjoys “a web of arcane and unnecessary tax breaks — deductions for well depletion and intangible drilling costs.” The Times reports that these breaks are unique to the oil industry and when combined with other subsidies cost $4 billion a year.

Given that strong agricultural profits made it possible to end the ethanol subsidy, Congress should use near-record profits in the oil industry as motivation for ending taxpayer subsidies to giant oil companies.

Most experts believe that ending oil company subsidies would have little effect on gasoline prices. And it’s worth noting that Exxon Mobil used $5.7 billion of its $10.7 billion first-quarter profits in 2011 to buy back shares, a strategy to boost share prices, not produce more oil or gasoline.

Congress ended the ethanol subsidy in late 2011. It should end oil industry subsidies in 2012.