The one thing I agree with is this should be more in the hands of the states. Reason being - the unemployment rate can vary greatly state by state. Where I live, employers cannot hire people. My daughter has gotten two job offers after just talking to people over the phone - employers are desperate for people.
My husband is a recruiter - he hires both temporary and permanent help. He has so many job openings but people do not want to be hired. He has had countless situations where he hired someone - or was on the cusp of hiring of them and they bag out. It seems many of these people are using this as saying they tried to get a job in order to keep getting the additional unemployment pay. And these jobs are at all levels from low skilled to high skilled positions.
Obviously not everyone is like this - however, look at this way - if you could stay at home with your kids and earn enough without working, wouldn't you? This is the current way it is within my state. Now obviously it may not be the same every where. We do need to help people --- When they need it --- but not pay someone for not working. To me, I think the states are in the best position to determine how their particular economy is working.
My other thought was to provide bonuses to the businesses and to those that enter the workforce again to encourage both the hiring and to start working again. People working and businesses hiring will help the economy much more than to give additional pay to those who are not working. To be clear I am not advocating to eliminate unemployment - that should still be in play as is needed, but there should be more incentive to hire and to work - the focus should be to get people into jobs -- unemployment pay should be temporary to help those in need.