Just one round of child tax credit (CTC) payments had sharply reduced hunger rates and has provided an overall and significant boost to the economy. Not bad for a month’s work. It’s also a profound argument against the handful of Democrats who are blundering their way into trying to sabotage President Joe Biden’s plan to make those payments permanent.

This month’s House Pulse Survey form the Census Bureau shows a 3% drop in households with children who have food insecurity, meaning “sometimes” or “often” not having enough to eat. They conducted the surveys both before and after the CTC payments were delivered, and thus had the basis of comparison. Families that don’t have children eligible for the credit reported the same level of food insecurity, which further points to the CTC as the reason hardship declined for families with kids.

In addition to less hunger, there was a drop in the number of families with children reporting they had difficulty paying weekly expenses. The expansion of the CTC included in the COVID-19 relief American Rescue Plan means the credit that families were previously seeing as a one-time payment when they filed their tax returns is now delivered in prorated monthly payments. The credit was also increased to up to $3,600 a year for children 5 and younger, and $3,000 for ages 6-17 per child. The Build Back Better plan that House and Senate Democrats are working on as a budget reconciliation bill would make that program last several more years, at least.

In addition to directly helping families have enough to eat and to pay bills, the conservative-leaning Niskanen Center finds that the expanded CTC “will enable $27.6 billion in new household spending, support over half a million new jobs, and boost the economies of rural America, in particular.” The Center explains that “child benefits like the CTC can serve as a powerful economic stimulus for local communities given the greater consumption needs of households with children.”

Which is glaringly obvious, yes, but nonetheless important to see spelled out, and not just by left-leaning policy groups. The Niskanen Center’s analysis estimates $27.6 billion in new consumer spending, which would support more than 500,00 new jobs nationally. That would produce, they estimate, $1.9 billion in added revenue to state and local governments in sales taxes alone. Also helpful, the Center report “puts numbers to that impact, with full estimates by state and congressional district.” That’s found here.

Let’s look at, oh, say, Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s district, New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District. He’s one of the ringleaders behind the Blue Dogs’ efforts at hostage taking. The Niskanen Center estimates that 246,072 households will receive the expanded benefit for a $141,371,433 net benefit to the district. Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux in Georgia’s 7th Congressional District is another signatory of the letter threatening this program. Even more families in her district—264,582—would get that benefit, and it would a great big economic boost: $220,394,256.

This relates to every swing district, and to some blood red ones. Rural communities will see the most support. “The child tax credit expansion is going to be huge for rural working-class communities,” Samuel Hammond, the Niskanen economist who co-authored the report, told The Washington Post's Greg Sargent. “It’s strange to see Republicans oppose spending money even when it goes to their own constituents.”

Niskanen finds the three states that will get the most in funds are Texas (hello Blue Dog Reps. Filemon Vela, Henry Cuellar, and Vincent Gonzales); Florida (remarkably no one from that state signed on to this letter); and California (Rep. Jim Costa). But the smaller and less populous states will disproportionately benefit from expanded CTC because they tend to have more low-income residents per capita and larger average family sizes. So relative to population size, they’ll see more benefits.

Also the children in their districts are less hungry, which seems like a pretty desirable outcome for any Democrat. Even Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema could agree that’s an important thing. How could they possibly want to jeopardize that?