Here's a tip: do what Thanksgiving cooking you can before Thanksgiving. That way, you can spend less time day-of cooking, and more time drinking and watching football.

What else to talk about when you talk about lending. Alternatives to bank debt. [OPEN Forum--from our sponsor, American Express OPEN]

Starting a small business in New York City. Of course, there's some good stuff in here even if you're starting one elsewhere. [NYT]

Entrepreneurs against health-care reform? Not generally, of course. But there's an interesting trend among actual federal legislators. [You're The Boss]

Authenticity's the rage. And it makes great marketing! [The New Entrepreneur]

The women. Some folks with two X chromosomes who are practicing fantastic entrepreneurship. [AllBusiness]

Via You're The Boss, we see that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me.), the ranking member of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee and our favorite senator, is actually seeking to end the America's Recovery Capital lending program before it wastes $120 million more of taxpayer money. A 60% default rate will make you think that way, we suppose.

Snowe's bill really is a stop-him-before-he-kills-again measugre. Over $130 million has alrady been lent out in 100%-backed microloans to struggling but "viable" small businesses trying to pay back pre-existing debt. The bill is about saving what remains of the $255 million originally allocated to the program (back in last February's stimulus act) and, presumably, putting it to more productive use. If legislators need any further convincing that Snowe's bill is probably a good idea, they should read what our Anonymous Banker had to say about the ARC program. This was bad from the start. Let's limit the damage.

So what was discussed at that meeting yesterday among administration officials, lawmakers, and small business owners?

The good: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner admitted that the small-business credit crunch lingers. Acknowledgement is the first step toward fixing. He even went a step farther, joining our very own Anonymous Banker in laying some of the blame for the status quo at the feet of the banks: "Banks bear some responsibility for the extent of the damage caused by the crisis. And they carry a substantial obligation to help our communities get back on their feet." It's also very much worth noting, as Robb Mandelbaum does, that Geithner actually stayed throughout the day. We know this stuff is important; it's good that he does, too.

The bad: as Daily Dose notes, Geithner's admonishment that the banks have got to lend to small businesses more amounted to little more than a "pep talk." Maybe if some of the lawmakers present--in addition to Geithner and Small Business Administration head Karen G. Mills, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), the former the chair of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee, were there--decided that the banks are not going to listen to mere pep talks and might require some greater inducement, then the credit would truly once again flow.

At least as far as Department of Defense spending goes, small businesses may not have to worry that they are being denied their rightful 23% of all federal contracts much longer. That's because, according to the New York Times, current trends in Pentagon spending will expand the opportunities for small contractors. Specifically, the Pentagon will likely be in the market less for complex and gargantuan weapons systems, which only two or three (gigantic) companies are even remotely capable of producing anyway, and more for small, individually tailored jobs and devices in the information-systems industry. "Second-tier defense contractors focused in information technology and intelligence applications will probably do well in the emerging military market," one analyst predicts.

The best advice we've read for small companies looking to get in on those billions in federal contract dollars is to seek to become a subcontractor, at least at the outset. That is, try to do business not with the government itself, but with the business that directly won the government contract. That way, you still get the benefit of all those extra billions the feds are handing out, but without all the hassle involved in actually bidding on and winning a contract.

Even as we speak (or type), various prominent officials in the Obama administration are meeting with various prominent folk in the small business and banking communities. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,Small Business Administration head Karen G. Mills, and Small Business & Entrepreneurship Commitee Chair Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are among those who will pick each other's brains today, along with the brains of several invited small business owners.

The New York Times's Robb Mandelbaum has the essential take (as he usually does). "Banks still seem wary of taking bailout money, and the Democrats who run the House Small Business Committee are uninterested in increasing SBA loan sizes to the levels the Obama administration proposed," he notes. "But a conference--that’s something that can be accomplished quickly." He'll be reporting on the gathering tomorrow. Should make for some further good reading.

Even as we speak (or type), various prominent officials in the Obama administration are meeting with various prominent folk in the small business and banking communities. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,Small Business Administration head Karen G. Mills, and Small Business & Entrepreneurship Commitee Chair Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are among those who will pick each other's brains today, along with the brains of several invited small business owners.

The New York Times's Robb Mandelbaum has the essential take (as he usually does). "Banks still seem wary of taking bailout money, and the Democrats who run the House Small Business Committee are uninterested in increasing SBA loan sizes to the levels the Obama administration proposed," he notes. "But a conference--that’s something that can be accomplished quickly." He'll be reporting on the gathering tomorrow. Should make for some further good reading.

So uber-investment bank Goldman Sachs is teaming up with Warren Buffett to put together a $500 million program for training, mentoring, and, yes, providing credit to up to 10,000 small businesses. We wish we could say that they are doing this because it makes good business sense (as Goldman's press release seems to argue), but frankly, if that were the reason, they would probably commit a lot more than half-a-billion to it. Rather, according to the New York Times, this is all about alleviating a bunch of bad publicity. Much of that bad publicity derives from Goldman's outstanding success this year, and the $17 billion it has already set aside for employee compensation. And it also comes from reports that it (and the other big recipients of federal bailout money) have actually cut back on lending to small businesses, and from its being chastised by those with small business on their minds. So, you know, you can thank us in part. You're welcome.

While much of the small-business credit drop of the past year can be, er, credited to falling demand for credit (this economy, after all, is not a splendid time to go into debt if you can avoid it), we have also pointed the blame in part at some of the country's biggest banks (and biggest recipients of federal bailout money), who have permitted less-than-encouraging raw numbers and, even more, a dispirited psychology to coax them against lending very much at all to the nation's small businesses.

And new numbers reveal much the same. If you take the small-business loan balances of the 22 banks that received the most federal bailout money over the past half-year, you can watch a $10.5 billion decline. You can also witness three of those banks make no small-business loans at all. So much for gratitude?

This thing reminded us of this thing. Sometimes, it pays to be small. And maybe never more than right now.

It's that time of the year again: the 401(k) safe harbor notice requirement of December 1 is fast approaching.

If you’re not aware of the 401(k) safe harbor, it’s a provision in the retirement plan law that allows you as an owner to automatically meet the 401(k) discrimination test--and thus, avoid returning any 401(k) contribution. The dollars can be significant: 401(k) limits for 2010 will be $16,5000 plus $5,500 catch-up if you are age 50 or older. So what's December 1? It is the deadline for you to provide the required safe harbor notice to your employees for 2010.

You yourself can satisfy the safe harbor requirements for next year (after giving timely notice to your employees) by making one of two types of contributions:

* At least 3% or more of compensation to all eligible employees. Generally, the 3% contribution must be provided to all employees eligible to make elective deferrals to the plan even if they choose to make no contributions themselves.

* A matching contribution equal to 100% of the first 3% of employee contributions 50% of the next 2%. That is, if every employee contributes at least 5% of their compensation, the maximum employer match is 4% of total compensation.

But if economic uncertainties leave you undecided about whether you want to have a safe harbor 401(k) plan for 2010, then you can take advantage of certain safety valves that IRS regulations have made available.

On May 18, 2009, at the height of the economic meltdown, the IRS issued proposed regulations that allow distressed employers (those who have incurred a “substantial business hardship”) to reduce or suspend their safe harbor contributions to their 401(k) retirement plans mid-year. Although only proposed, the new rules can be relied upon immediately for plan amendments adopted after May 18, 2009.

But here’s another safety valve that may provide you even more flexibility, even if you haven’t sustained “substantial business hardship”: instead of distributing a safe harbor notice that guarantees the 3% contribution regardless of its subsequent financial condition, an employer can provide a “conditional notice” at least 30 days before the start of the plan year.

The notice would state that the employer may give a safe harbor contribution for the following year. And then, no later than 11 months later, the employer must provide another notice indicating that the safe harbor has been elected and the 3% contribution will be made for that year.

The above applies to the 3% safe harbor contribution across the board. But what about the safe harbor match: can it be stopped during the plan year? The answer is yes, by providing a notice to employees at least 30 days before the contributions are to be stopped.

1. There must be the proper plan documentation.

2. The 401(k) discrimination tests must be provided for the entire plan year.

Actually, there’s one more important consideration: your employee's expectations. You should try to go beyond the formal notice requirements when communicating with your employees.

There’s some fine print to consider, of course, and safe harbor plans are not for every business owner. The decision to use the safe harbor method to maximize your 401(k) contributions should be based on your objectives and your plan’s demographics. And that allows me to segue into my usual caveat: this column is for informational purposes only, and should not be considered tax or legal advice. You should discuss this matter with your own tax advisor.

Jerry Kalish is founder and President of National Benefit Services, Inc., a Chicago-based employee benefit consulting and administrative firm that serves private-held companies, publicly traded companies, and public sector employers. He blogs at The Retirement Plan Blog and can be reached at jerry@nationalbenefit.com.