When you cannot distinguish between what the government does to you and what the government does for you …

… you end up with a story like the one Peter Coy writes for the latest Bloomberg Businessweek.

Coy attempts to document Republican hypocrisy over congressional “mandates.” Why, he asks, would Republicans who objected so vociferously to the ObamaCare mandate turn around and support “mandates” limiting access to unemployment benefits? Specifically, benefits would be limited to people who pass drug tests and to those who have earned high school diplomas or have enrolled in a GED program.

Actually, the distinction is pretty easy. The ObamaCare individual health insurance requirement is something the government does to you. It forces you to take an action against your will. It is a mandate, and it’s a bad mandate.

Unemployment benefits represent something the government does for you at other people’s expense. The education and drug testing requirements come into play only for those who choose to seek the benefits. Just as the government can limit unemployment benefits to those who are actually unemployed, it can enact other reasonable standards limiting access to the public’s largesse. There is no mandate.