This week the Senate unanimously approved a new bill that will extend the duration of unemployment benefits to 20 weeks in two dozen states where the jobless rate exceeds 8.5 percent. States with a lower rate of unemployment will receive 14 weeks maximum, while the worst-off in the hardest hit areas could receive up to 99 weeks of assistance.

The bill acknowledges that even when an economy begins to improve, oftentimes the rate of unemployment is among the slowest things to change. People are cautious, and jobs remain hot commodities.

My state, New York, is among those 24 that will receive the extended 20 weeks of benefits. Granted, many people in this state desperately need that help. But what about all the people on unemployment who don't really need it? New York magazine captures a sentiment I fear may be all too common among a certain segment of the state's out-of-work masses: "Lucky for us, New York's unemployment rate is hovering above 9% so the gravy train will keep smoking down the line all the way to April."

Lucky? Gravy train? I wonder what the Senate would say to that.

I have had numerous friends in recent years accept government checks for months at a time after losing or quitting their jobs. These are college-educated, able-bodied men and women. They have experience in both professional and service positions, but more importantly, they have the intelligence and health to learn and perform all sorts of jobs.

So why are they on the dole? Many of them are actors, and they claim that they need time in the afternoons to attend auditions, precluding the option of working full-time. But many of them, including the actors, don't seem to do much with all those free hours in the day. They lounge about in Brooklyn coffee shops, stay out until 4 a.m. with other friends who have nowhere to be in the morning, and generally live like the idle rich in New York. They may be idle, but they're not rich, and any money they do have is coming from unemployment.

This has always bothered me. I have also been out of work, and I managed to survive below the poverty line for much of my mid-20s, cobbling together an existence with freelance writing work that never paid much. But it never occurred to me to apply for unemployment. I could not, in good conscience, drain that resource. I had a degree, a strong back, professional writing experience, and an impressive, if accidental, résumé in food service - I figured I could always find work somewhere.

One thing the unemployed people I've known like best about their benefits programs is that they have to do almost nothing to receive the checks. As long as they show some modicum of effort - i.e. they can ask someone about a job or just drop off a résumé somewhere every few days - they're set. Maybe what we need is a tighter system, one that actually investigates the people who get the checks and determines for them if they're really as needy as they say. Then those who need assistance (and are working to get to a place where they no longer will) can get it, and those who are able to find work will do so also.

What do you think of the new bill? Do you know anyone who you feel takes unfair advantage of unemployment? Anyone who needs unemployment but can't get it? How do you think we could modify the system to make it more fair?

[Image: Tea Lounge in Park Slope from Brooklyn Paper]