Dr. Horwitz does a very nice job of describing what we all should know intuitively. That, aside from rewarding failure, bailing out failed companies creates moral hazard, redistributes wealth and crowds out markets. And, as I've illustrated here aplenty over the years, subsidies benefit only those subsidized, at the expense of you and me.
I have an alternate (or, let's say, an additional) view with regard to Wal-Mart. Dr. Horwitz suggests that one reason Wal-Mart supported raising the minimum wage was because of the harm it would levy onto its competitors. While I suspect that may very well be the case (I've written here, hereandhere on Wal-Mart and Senator Durbin's coup that reduced the debit card swipe fee at the expense of the consumer), being that its customer is your everyday consumer, lobbying for higher wages (for simply the sake of higher wages) might seem like a net win for Wal-Mart - provided it doesn't result in higher unemployment among its low-income customers. In the end however, regardless of Wal-Mart's motive, whether we're talking putting the competition out of business or putting more money in the hands of its customers, it's still the government redistributing private sector resources, at the expense, ironically, of the minimum wage worker (read San Fancisco Discriminates):