Um, no.

I just finished reading this article, and I'm shocked.  Does Valerie Jarrett really think unemployment stimulates the economy?  Perhaps this is taken somewhat out of context, but the article ends with her comment that unemployment recipients go out and spend the money, which stimulates the economy.  This is just wrong thinking.  If the government simply takes money from one entity that would spend it, and gives it to another entity which in turn spends it, the net result is not growth, but simply the same, with different people doing the spending.  However, given that the government actually costs money to operate, the money taken is more than the money doled out, and therefore contributes less to economic growth than it would have if the government had stayed out of the equation all together.  In this equation, the only thing that actually contributes to economic growth is the growth in government debt, which would increase the amount available to be spent, which in turn would actually be stimulative to the economy.

Let me just say that I'm in no way against unemployment benefits.  I just think the whole idea of trying to spin unemployment benefits into some sort of growth program is silly.