Keith Koffler Why Democrats may disappoint in the 2018 midterms, despite Trump's unpopularity - NBC News

Keith Koffler Why Democrats may disappoint in the 2018 midterms, despite Trump's unpopularity

For one thing, most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape.

Feb.05.2018 / 8:22 PM ET

Republicans who today don’t want Trump within a thousand miles of their campaign rallies may suddenly beg for an appearance.J. Scott Applewhite / AP

For weeks, even months, Democrats have been salivating — and Republicans getting dyspeptic — over the prospect of a “wave” mid-term election that will sweep them into power in both the House and Senate. But there’s ample reason to believe that this wave will never materialize and that Republicans may be safer on the beach than most believe.

President Donald Trump’s approval ratings hover around 40 percent, and conventional wisdom has it that his unpopularity will rub off on other Republicans. This is certainly true — but its effect is limited by the fact that Trump is a singular figure.

Even Washington Republicans — some in his own administration — have been overheard by reporters muttering that the president is out of his mind, or words to that effect. Members of Congress didn’t elect Trump, though they can be blamed for supporting most of his policies. Many of those policies, however, could well be perceived by voters as bearing fruit — even if some see Trump as a little nutty.

Those anticipating a Democratic wave must understand, first, that most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape. That is a critical issue when it comes to getting elected. Remember the presidential campaign of the Democrats’ own Bill Clinton coined the phrase, “The economy, stupid.”

A January Quinnipiac poll found that 66 percent of U.S. voters believe the economy is "excellent" or "good," up from 63 percent in December. This is the highest positive rating of the economy since the poll first asked the question in 2001.

Those anticipating a Democratic wave must understand, first, that most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape.

Trump, however, is not given particular credit. Only 37 percent of respondents say his policies are helping the economy. In fact, 49 percent say former President Barack Obama is more responsible for the strength of the economy, while 40 percent say Trump is more responsible than Obama. Either way, the economy is good, and people are feeling it.

And the economy looks unlikely to change for the worse anytime soon. Many forecasters predict growth at close to 3 percent for the rest of the year. Jobs are abundant and unemployment is shrinking. In mid-January, jobless claims were at a 45-year low.

What’s more, the benefits of the tax cut passed in December are going to be pressing directly on the pleasure-sensation zone of workers’ brains all year. The new money is due to start showing up in paychecks by mid-February.

If voters start to forget about or overlook this benefit, Trump is certain to keep blasting all the good economic news on his Twitter feed right up through Election Day. He won’t make the same mistake as Obama, who failed to successfully publicize middle-class tax cuts that were included in the 2009 stimulus bill. Most people didn’t even know they had gotten a tax cut.

Another problem is that Democrats do not appear to have much of an agenda beyond helping illegal immigrants — over which they nearly shut down the government before backing off. Democratic leadership backed off for good reason: Relatively speaking, no one cares.

Only 5 percent of Americans listed “Immigration/illegal immigrants” as their top concern in a December 2017 Gallup poll. The other big Democratic focus, the Russian investigation, is even less of a priority. Fewer than 0.5 percent cited the “Situation with Russia” as their biggest issue, despite constant efforts by Democrats and the press to highlight it.

A December 2017 AP poll showed that health care and the economy matter far more to Americans, all things considered. Only 38 percent said “the Russia investigation” was very or extremely important. Compare that to the 85 percent who said the same about health care, 83 percent who gave that rating to the economy and 78 percent who felt that way about taxes.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe could even provide Trump grounds for a series of triumphant I-told-you-so tweets — should Mueller exonerate him. On the other hand, a finding of wrongdoing, though possibly harmful to Republicans, could stir the GOP base to turn out for the midterm election and vote to protect Trump against impeachment by a Democratic House. This could mitigate the expected large turnout of the Democratic base, which is already highly motivated.

One potential bright spot for Democrats is that Gallup found Americans’ top concern to be “dissatisfaction with government/poor leadership.” The bad news? Dissatisfaction with government is nothing new — running at about the same level it has for a decade, with around two-thirds of Americans saying they don’t like the way the nation’s affairs are being handled. Creating divided government, by giving the Democrats control of the House or the Senate, is hardly the ideal way to make government more effective.

Besides, Democrats are unlikely to rally on Election Day to put House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (New York) in charge of Congress. Neither polls above 50 percent — among Democrats.

It is true, though, that Democrats are ahead on the average of “generic” ballots — poll respondents say by an average of about 7 points that they would back a Democrat over a Republican in Congressional races. But the gap declined steeply during January, from a high of about 13 points.

One potential bright spot for Democrats is that Gallup found Americans’ top concern to be “dissatisfaction with government/poor leadership.”

In any case, early generic ballots are not reliable indicators of a wave — as the last three non-presidential year wave elections show. In the 2010 election, the midterm when Obama said the Democrats got a “shellacking,” the generic ballot had Republicans only barely ahead until late July, when the gap began to broaden. That November, Republicans picked up 63 House seats and six Senate seats.

In 1994, some generic ballots put Democrats ahead — including ABC News, which had Democrats leading right up until Election Day. Then Republicans stole Congress from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. The GOP won 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. On the other hand, the 2006 generic ballot consistently showed Democrats well ahead, and they took over the House and Senate, winning 31 seats in the former and six in the latter.

There is one other issue that could send the president’s approval rating soaring. It’s rarely mentioned in terms of its political effect, though. Perhaps because people are hoping, as they have for more than two decades, that the problem will somehow go away. This is the year something must be done, or not, to stop North Korea from developing a nuclear weapons arsenal that can attack the United States.

The signs are that Trump is inclined to face this existential menace. Eradicating the threat might take removing Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un from power, whether through economic or military pressure. Such a confrontation — even if difficult and costly — would likely result in a rallying around the flag and the president that would not dissipate before Election Day.

If this happens, Republicans who today don’t want Trump within a thousand miles of their campaign rallies might suddenly beg for an appearance. And Democrats will find their hopes of taking Congress are history, just like as Kim.

Keith Koffler is the editor of White House Dossier and the author of “Bannon: Always the Rebel."

China: Cheap American grain is hurting our farmers- CNN Money

China: Cheap American grain is hurting our farmers

by Daniel Shane @CNNMoney

February 5, 2018: 4:51 AM ET

China is reminding the U.S. that it can play tough on trade, too.

Less than two weeks after President Trump slapped new tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines, China has launched an investigation into a key U.S. agricultural export.

Chinese authorities said Sunday they would examine whether the U.S. is unfairly subsidizing exports of sorghum, a crop that is used to feed livestock and make a liquor that's very popular with Chinese drinkers.

Preliminary information showed "extensive dumping" of U.S. sorghum at lower than normal prices, China's Commerce Ministry said in a statement. That has caused "material injury" to Chinese farmers, it added.

China is the largest buyer of American sorghum products. It imported about $960 million worth last year, according to Chinese customs data.

"Sorghum is a good target for a trade dispute since it would have a major financial impact on the U.S.," said Loren Puette, director at ChinaAg, an agricultural research firm.

Squeezing the sorghum trade would hurt the U.S. rural economy, where Trump has a lot of support, he said. But other more significant exports grown by U.S. farmers are likely to escape action for now, Puette added.

China is the biggest buyer of American agricultural products, and a large part of that is soybeans. China bought $14 billion worth of them in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"This is likely just a warning to the U.S. that it should compromise on other trade issues," he said. "If China significantly restricted the import of U.S. soybeans, it would signal the beginning of a trade war."

That's something experts have been warning is an increasing risk. Trade tensions that simmered after Trump took office have started to intensify recently.

The Trump administration's decision to hike tariffs on solar components and washing machines last month had prompted fears that China could respond with tit-for-tat measures of its own.

Trump will decide on other potential trade sanctions against China in the coming months based on the results of U.S. investigations into steel, aluminum and intellectual property infringement.

China has taken measures against specific products like sorghum before. Last year, it imposed tariffs on U.S. exports of distiller dried grains, another livestock feed.

-- Nanlin Fang and Serenitie Wang contributed to this report.

Good news behind higher bond yields - Financial Times

5/2/2018

Good news behind higher bond yields

Despite a risk of a disorderly sell-off, yields are rising because of faster growth and inflation

Mohamed El-Erian

For something that supposedly was predicted for so long, the move up in US interest rates has attracted lots of attention. It’s been blamed for a violent sell-off in stocks and fuelled warnings not just of an end to the bull market in bonds but, perhaps, also equities. That, in turn, can engender concerns about the housing market, corporate funding, financial stability and economic growth.

Yet the causes behind the rise in bond yields suggests this is more likely to be part of a larger — and healthier — economic and financial normalisation. It is one, as I argued last month, that could help America and other advanced countries confine to the rear-view mirror the years of being stuck in low and insufficiently inclusive growth.

There are four reasons why.

First, the move up in yields is not just a US issue: it is part of a wider phenomenon that has seen German government bonds largely keep pace with their American counterparts. Five-year German maturities escaped the negative rate world they have been mired in for several years. It has also helped moderate a flattening of the yield curve that had led some to incorrectly argue markets were signalling an upcoming derailment of economic growth.

Second, and more importantly, good (not bad) forces are driving this phenomenon. Rather than a monetary policy mistake or deteriorating perception of sovereign credit risk, higher yields reflect increasing comfort with the growth and inflation outlook. The US is part of a synchronised pick-up in global economic activity, turbocharged by the implementation of pro-growth fiscal measures and deregulation, as well as brighter prospects for an infrastructure boost. Meanwhile, as confirmed by last week’s meeting of Federal Reserve policymakers, the US central bank continues the “beautiful normalisation” of unconventional measures, with markets converging much faster this year to official policy guidance on policy rates and inflation.

Third, despite the move up this year, rates remain at historically low levels, according to many metrics. They are well below what would normally be associated with the current — as well as forecast — growth and inflation, and what would be predicted by historical correlations for asset classes. Recall that last year the yield on US 10-year government bonds declined despite the surge in stocks that saw the S&P 500 rise 20 per cent.

Finally, it is far from clear the move in yields is necessarily the beginning of a larger and disorderly repricing of fixed-income markets. Recent comments by Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda and his European Central Bank counterpart Mario Draghi suggest that, despite improving domestic economies, neither central bank appears in a particular hurry to halt unconventional support of asset markets.

Moreover, with the 2017 sharp rise in equity prices having enhanced the funding status of so many public and private pension funds, the inclination and ability to “immunise” their liabilities is significantly stronger. The recent rise in rates, together with the wake-up call of the stock sell-off, will encourage more of them to step up their purchase of longer dated fixed income securities to match the maturity of future payment promises.

Taking these four points together suggests a much stronger likelihood that higher rates are part of a new and better economic paradigm for advanced countries. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be pain or that some other markets will not need to reprice. And there are, of course, still risks to durable growth and financial stability.

Tighter and more volatile financial conditions will increase the cost of mortgages and funding for corporations, and make life less comfortable for certain sectors of the economy such as interest-rate sensitive home builders and home improvement companies.

The development also comes at a time in which the funding needs of the US government are going up. But from a broader economic perspective — and as long as advanced economies continue to avoid geopolitical shocks, policy mistakes and market accidents — such drawbacks will pale next to the benefits of stronger and more-inclusive growth powered by higher business investment and rising household incomes.

This will also help counter the risk of collateral damage that has come with prolonged reliance on unusual central bank intervention in markets. In Europe’s case, for example, it has included negative nominal rates that eat away at the structural integrity of markets and undermine the provision of long-term protection such as life insurance and retirement products.

Given the dominance in 2017 of unusually low volatility and extremely favourable price performance, it should come as no great surprise that the market sell-off is attracting so much attention.

Yet it is the investor conditioning that was fuelled by last year’s benign developments that helped increase the technical probability of a sudden air pocket. With underlying fundamentals continuing to improve, the risks of disorderly spillovers to the economy and the financial system as a whole are likely to be well contained.

These Are the Best 2018 Super Bowl Commercials — So Far - TIME Busuness

These Are the Best 2018 Super Bowl Commercials — So Far Posted: 04 Feb 2018 03:00 AM PST The Super Bowl is not only football’s biggest stage, but it’s also the height of advertising. Just as the Philadelphia Eagles and the New England Patriots will battle for the 2018 Super Bowl championship, major companies and ad agencies will fight for your attention. With more than 100 million Americans expected to tune in for football’s biggest game, commercials for companies grow more expensive and extensive with each year. According to Sports Illustrated, NBC Sports charged more than $5 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl LII. While that’s a lot of cash, that doesn’t include the costs to create a commercial that will grab attention and make headlines. Indeed, per tradition, the Super Bowl ads this year feature a slew of celebrities, cameos and special effects. While not every ad has been released yet, here’s a ranking of some of the best 2018 Super Bowl commercials. The Best Cameos Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos took a brief break from taking over the world to appear in his company’s Super Bowl commercial. But he wasn’t the only high-profile individual to make an appearance. Indeed, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, rapper Cardi B, actress Rebel Wilson and actor Anthony Hopkins took a shot at replacing Amazon’s Alexa in this 90-second ad. And, yes, we all now want Cardi B’s voice to replace Alexa’s for good. (We can assume that decision will be up to Overlord Bezos.) The Best Break in Tradition The Budweiser Clydesdales took a break once again this year in the company’s new and emotional Super Bowl commercial. Instead of promoting its beer, Budweiser used its ad to show the work that went into bottling water this year in response to numerous natural disasters all over the world, including in Puerto Rico and California. Budweiser has donated 79 million cans of drinking water in response crises around the world during the last 30 years, the company said. The ad, which follows one factory worker who helps bottle the water, is set to the song “Stand By Me.” Last year, Budweiser’s ad focused on the story of its co-founder, who immigrated from Germany to the U.S. The Best Running Joke Febreze went all in on the story of “The Only Man Whose Bleep Don’t Stink.” That is, the only guy who doesn’t leave behind a gross smell when he exits the bathroom. This documentary-style commercial focuses on the story of this man — Dave — with interviews with his parents, his former wrestling coach and his ex-girlfriend. The stand-outs, certainly, are Dave’s parents: “My friend — her son’s a lawyer. But, my son — his bleep don’t stink,” says the mom. “That’s better than being a lawyer,” the dad responds proudly. The Best Appeal to Football-Watching Bros Chances are you’ve heard the phrase “Dilly Dilly.” Bud Light’s popular catchphrase — perhaps most commonly used amongst college-aged boys — returns in the company’s two-part Super Bowl commercial. Set in a fantastical world a la Game of Thrones, the ad builds upon others from the company that results in a battle between the underdogs and an eager army — all over a few cases of Bud Light. The battle concludes when the Bud Knight gallops into the battle on horseback, grabs some beer for himself then uses his sword to conjure some kind of magical power that wins the battle for the underdogs. The Best Thing That Could’ve Happened to Lexus In perhaps the most conveniently timed Super Bowl commercial of all, Lexus and Marvel partnered to create a commercial that somehow leads you to believe the Black Panther drives a 2018 Lexus LS 500 F Sport. The cool-factor of the luxury car, which is available this month, is greatly aided by the star of the highly anticipated Marvel film Black Panther, which comes out Friday, Feb. 16. King T’Challa, played by Chadwick Boseman, stars in the ad, where he runs through the streets and leaps in the air, diving through the car’s sunroof. The Best Reminder That We Do Not Deserve Tiffany Haddish Groupon has kindly reminded us all that we do not deserve comedian Tiffany Haddish. The break-out star of Girls Trip graces Groupon with her presence and asks, “What kind of person wouldn’t want to support local business?” The ad then flashes to a wealthy man, saying he does not support local businesses, and opens the door only to get punted in the stomach with a football. That must’ve not felt too good, responds Haddish with her iconic laugh. The Best Song of Ice and Fire A Doritos-Mountain Dew battle is afoot, and apparently actors Peter Dinklage and Morgan Freeman are the representatives for each. The commercial features a rap battle between the two actors, with Dinklage sinisterly lip-synching Busta Rhymes’s verse on “Look At Me Now”and Freeman retorting with Missy Elliot’s “Get Your Freak On.” More can be expected to the ad, as Doritos says “only one can win.”(And, yes, Games of Thrones fans have already pointed out that Tyrion Lannister himself is in a Super Bowl commercial that could, in fact, convey The Song of Ice and Fire.) The Best of Famous Actors Doing Weird Things Danny DeVito being the human version of an M&M is probably one of those things that you’ve never thought about. But once you do, it all makes so much sense. Meanwhile, Friends star David Schwimmer keeps up with Skittle’s odd sense of humor in the teasers for its 2018 Super Bowl commercial. And Bill Hader shows off his comedic range in Pringles’s Super Bowl ad, where he says “wow” in the most obscure ways possible.

Lotteries, sausages and manipulation: Vladimir Putin and his team look to fight his only election rival – low turnout - Independent

3/2/2018

Lotteries, sausages and manipulation: Vladimir Putin and his team look to fight his only election rival – low turnout

With the Russian president expected to be re-elected handsomely, the Kremlin wants a final result that projects globally

Oliver Carroll Moscow @olliecarroll

‘The presidential administration might issue a directive to keep things clean but local governors know that a poor result for Putin is not good news for them,’ says Professor Grigorii Golosov Reuters

In less than two months time, Russia will vote and re-elect Vladimir Putin. As many as eight names may make the ballot papers, but Mr Putin’s is the only box that counts.

In that sense, little will have changed in March from the last presidential election in 2012. That, too, was a referendum on President Putin. But the comparison stops there. Six years ago the challenge he faced was a protest movement that had swept through the country, which Mr Putin vanquished; this year he has another opponent: voter apathy.

The Kremlin, say multiple reports, wants these elections to leave no doubt of the president’s legitimacy. After all, these are the first presidential elections after the annexation of Crimea – and they may very well be Mr Putin’s last. So the projected overwhelming first-round win with between 65 per cent and 70 per cent will not be enough. It has to at least feel as if the whole country has joined in.

US sanctions list targets all Russians, says Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin apparently wants a turnout of at least the 70 per cent that voted in Mr Putin’s first election. A minimum would be to surpass the nearly 64 per cent support Mr Putin received in 2012 with a turnout of more than 65 per cent.

But it has a problem: How do you create interest in a contest without competition? And how do you selectively reverse a two-decade-old pact, made after Mr Putin’s elevation to the presidency, where the strongman offered Russians “stability” in exchange for keeping out of politics?

The 70/70 target, referencing the turnout and Mr Putin’s final vote percentage, was denied by the Kremlin, though all but confirmed by the governor of Altai district, Alexander Karlin, who was secretly recorded in a meeting. “The Chair of the Election Committee may say there is no 70/70 figure, but you can ignore that,” Mr Karlin is reported as saying. “Nobody has cancelled those thresholds for us, that is a fact... There are no excuses: You have all the tools at your disposal.”

Most analysts surveyed by The Independent suggested that a 70 per cent turnout is unlikely. At last year’s parliamentary elections, less than half the country voted. While participation in presidential elections is always higher, a jump of that order is unprecedented.

“It’s possible to get near to the 70 per cent mark,” says Valery Solovei, a professor of the Moscow State Institute for International Relations. “But for that you would need to create a certain amount of intrigue and allow open competition from the remaining candidates, and that is a dangerous game for the Kremlin.”

Even a 60 per cent turnout would need a number of artificial interventions, says Grigory Melkonyants, co-chair of the elections monitor Golos.

Russia opposition leader Alexei Navalny detained by police at anti-Putin protest

To this end, the Kremlin has already begun tinkering with technical details. The day of voting was switched to 18 March to coincide with the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea. Advertising began right after the date was announced on 18 December, weeks earlier than usual. There will also likely be local referenda on the day of the elections, where voters will be asked to rank future infrastructure projects.

On the day of voting itself, voters will likely be offered all kinds of discounts, lotteries, funfairs and cut-price sausage promotions. Such shenanigans, traditional in Russian elections campaigns, might add 5 or 10 per cent to the turnout.

Larger boosts will need direct intervention, says Grigorii Golosov, Professor of Comparative Politics at the European University at St Petersburg. The first instrument authorities will use will be to compel those who are dependent on the government to vote. “Teachers, doctors, military, police, factory workers, long-term infirm, mentally ill – all these groups will be strongly persuaded to vote.”

Russia developing ‘doomsday’ nuclear torpedo, US says

US ‘hunting’ to arrest Russians around world, Moscow warns citizens

Russia fear locusts could destroy World Cup pitches

There may be attempts to stuff ballot boxes – a tactic seen in the 2011 parliamentary elections. But according to Mr Golosov, the bigger markups come after voting, when the votes are recorded on official election protocols. Here, the level of manipulation is not uniform. “The presidential administration might issue a directive to keep things clean,” says Mr Golosov. “But local governors know that a poor result for Putin is not good news for them.”

The republics of the northern Caucasus are particularly kind to the president, but here there is little room for improvement. In 2012, Chechnya returned a scarcely believable 99 per cent of votes for Putin from a turnout of 99 per cent. In October 2010, on the eve of parliamentary elections, the speaker of the Chechen parliament promised Russia’s upper house that Chechnya could organise a result of “120 per cent” if needed.

The independent electoral researcher Sergey Shpilkin suggests that Russia has now split into two when it comes to elections, with first Russia significantly cleaner than the second. The two Russias are scattered geographically. Russia one, usually major towns and cities, has 80 per cent of the population. Russia two, usually in rural areas and away from observers, has 20 per cent of the population. At the last elections, both populations returned about the same amount of votes for the ruling party United Russia.

According to Mr Shpilkin’s mathematical modelling, which identifies statistical outliers, the number of, for want of a better description, “unusual” votes in the system has grown from three million in 2000 to 10 to 15 million in recent elections.

“You can see from the maths almost immediately where the manipulations happen,” said Grigory Melkonyants. “Ultimately the Kremlin has a choice – risk scandal or be happy with a low turnout.”

How I Saved $36,000 With This Simple Trick- TIME Business

How I Saved $36,000 With This Simple Trick

By MARIE C. FRANKLIN / LEN PENZO DOT COM August 31, 2015

Pull up a chair and get comfortable because I’m about to tell you a story that may seem hard to believe — but it is the absolute truth. Around 12 years ago, I made a decision that forever changed my relationship to money: instead of spending every $5 bill that passed through my hands, I started saving them.

At the time, I had two daughters in private colleges and, to put it mildly, my husband and I were financially stressed. But I found that socking away each and every $5 bill I received as change in a cash transaction was one way I could stay in control of what little extra money I had at the time — and the strategy has paid off. The girls are out of college and both are married now. And I’ve saved almost $36,000, all in $5 bills. Wowza!

The best part about my plan is that you can do it too. All it takes to get started is a commitment to save and one $5 bill.

The number one reason most people don’t save is that they don’t have a savings plan. Not me. From the moment I wake in the morning, I’m thinking of ways to get back a $5 bill. That’s one reason I do most of my day to day living by spending cash, because let’s be honest, you can’t get a $5 back if you pay with a debit or credit card.

And once you commit to saving your fives, you’ll never look at a $5 bill the same way again. Once you see them accumulate, you won’t be tempted to spend them. It becomes an addictive habit, a fun game to see how fast you can grow your stash.

One of Warren Buffett’s ideas about investing that I really like is that we should invest in ourselves before anything else. What better way to invest in ourselves than committing to a personal savings plan?

The way I see it, people everywhere are yearning for a simple way to put aside some extra money, to pay for a wedding or a vacation, a new car or a house; to pay off school loans or help put a child through school; or maybe the ultimate savings goal — retirement. Some people throw loose change in a jar, while others are way more ambitious and disciplined, setting aside 10% of their monthly income as savings before paying their bills.

But loose change never amounts to any significant money and most people can’t save at all, much less 10% of their salary. So I started a blog to help people get started on the saving their fives idea, and hope you will become a faithful reader and a follower. For more information on my nest egg saving method, please visit Save Money Fast With Fives.

Identity theft nightmares: 'I've spent my lifetime building up my credit' - CNN Money

Identity theft nightmares: 'I've spent my lifetime building up my credit'

by Anna Bahney @annabahney

September 29, 2017: 11:11 AM ET

William Burnett, a retired pilot in Texas, says he's afraid to go to his mailbox.

That's where the 68-year-old first learned that someone had stolen his identity, and where he continues to receive evidence that fraudulent accounts have been opened in his name.

He first figured out there was a problem in August when he got a letter from his bank. Ever since, he's been playing an endless game of whack-a-mole trying to shut down the fake accounts as quickly as they pop up. So far he has not lost any money as a result of the fraud, but his credit has taken a steep and fast nosedive.

His sterling credit score tumbled around 150 points across the three credit monitoring agencies -- Equifax, Experian and TransUnion -- in a matter of weeks.

"Like many Americans I've spent my lifetime building up my credit," says Burnett. "Each time they try to take out accounts in your name, your credit takes a hit."

Burnett was already trying to reclaim his identity when he heard about the recent Equifax data breach, in which 143 million people's personal and financial data were accessed, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth and addresses.

Earlier this month, he learned from Equifax that he was one of the ones affected.

But by then he had already contacted the credit agency to dispute fraudulent accounts and paid for additional credit monitoring. That was in August, a time when the company says it already knew of the breach.

Now he wonders if the Equifax hack is how the thieves got his information. He's also wondering how many other people are out there are pretending to be him.

Finding the fraud

Burnett, who lives in rural northeast Texas, says his bank, Wells Fargo, was the first to notify him that there was fraud.

"Someone in Yucca Valley, California, was trying to set up a new checking and savings account in my name and change my bank mailing address to California."

Wells Fargo shut down the new account. Unfortunately, that was only the beginning.

He now has a stack of mail from more than 30 companies that he's never done business with. All of them are notifying him that someone has tried to open a new account or new line of credit in his name.

The list is long, and he says it includes many web-based financial companies like Allied Direct, Web Bank, Prosper Marketplace and PayPal, as well as other traditional lenders like Citi and Capital One auto finance.

There were also retail cards.

"I'm a retired pilot, I live out here in northeast Texas to be away from the hustle and bustle of cities," he says in a Texan drawl. "Supposedly, I tried to set up a Victoria's Secret account?"

Related: What to do if your identity was stolen after the Equifax hack

When the thief opened an account at a retailer where Burnett also has an account -- Sears -- the company alerted him that it had put a hold on his own credit card because they felt something funny was going on.

Hearing about Equifax

Although Equifax learned about its data breach in July, hackers accessed the personal and financial information between May and July. The company did not notify consumers until September.

Burnett had assumed his identity was stolen because a doctor or dentist office had been careless with his Social Security number.

Then he found out about the Equifax breach.

"Oh boy, I was really hot to trot," he said.

There is no way to know for sure how thieves got his information, but the situation Burnett is dealing with is exactly the kind of thing a thief could do with the data they got from Equifax.

And Burnett has no sympathy for the credit agency: "If they go out of business, tough, they aren't doing anything to help us."

CNNMoney asked Equifax about Burnett's situation, and the company selling credit protection services to consumers during the time that the company was aware of the breach. Wyatt Jefferies, a spokesman for Equifax, acknowledged the questions but did not respond to either query.

How to shut down thieves

Burnett has become something of an accidental expert in shutting down accounts and alerting authorities.

The first thing he did when he learned he was a victim of identity fraud was to notify the Federal Trade Commission. He also notified the Social Security Administration and local law enforcement officials.

Next he set out to deal with the individual accounts that had been opened.

When he calls the customer service numbers to alert them to a fake account in his name, the first thing he always says is, "I would like to speak to your fraud department, please."

Many have been very helpful, he said. "Only a few have been nasty."

Even though he took and paid for the credit monitoring Equifax offered before it announced the data breach, Burnett has now taken the more extreme step of freezing his credit with all three credit agencies.

A credit freeze prevents anyone from being approved for credit or opening a new account in his name. It is the strongest way to stop this type of fraud.

But by stopping the thieves from getting credit, he stops himself, too.

"If I want to buy my wife a new car I have to lift that freeze," he said. The freeze can be lifted by notifying the credit agencies of an intention to apply for credit several days before applying.

"it's going to create a new hassle for us," Burnett says, "but nothing compared to what we've been through."