Last week, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, which the Obama administration would like to see expire. Conrad even suggested waiving pay-go rules (which apply to those cuts for the richest two percent) in order to extend the cuts without paying for them.

Conrad quickly clarified that he wasn’t embracing the Republican approach, which is simply extending all of the tax cuts forever, calling that a “formula for the decline of the United States.” Today, Conrad appeared on CNBC to keep on trying to explain his position. “Can you clarify what’s more important to you: the revenue you would generate by letting them expuire on the wealthy or the damage that it would do to a nascent economic recovery if you raise taxes,” asked CNBC’s Joe Kernen. “What should we do?” Conrad replied that taxes need to eventually go up on the rich but “I don’t think this is the moment“:

We’ve got to be very careful with the timing of what we do. There’s no question in my mind that taxes have to go up on the wealthiest among us. The question is when. I don’t think this is the moment.

Watch it:

Conrad’s argument is understandable, and far better than the Republican position of passing deficit financed tax cuts in perpetuity, but it’s still misguided. While Conrad’s aim is to preserve the tax cuts in order to boost the economy, the Congressional Budget Office has found that, of the available tax and spending options, cutting income taxes in 2011 is the least stimulative of all. In fact, such a move generates just 10 to 40 cents in economic activity for every dollar spent. Cuts for high income households are even less effective, as “higher-income households…would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income.”

Reducing income taxes also has, by far, the lowest effect on job creation. Other options like extending unemployment benefits, cutting payroll taxes, or investing in infrastructure all have considerably higher bang for the buck. Plus, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, temporarily extending the tax cuts for the wealthy induces “a substantial risk that Congress would continue extending the tax cuts and even make them permanent, creating much larger deficits for years to come.

Indeed, as the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote, “a temporary extension of the upper-income tax cuts would be the worst of both worlds. In the short term, it would be ineffective as an economic stimulus. In the long term, it would add to the deficit.” A two year extension of the cuts for the rich would cost about $75 billion, with little in terms of economic activity to show for it.

Monday night, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was pressed by Chris Matthews to identify what programs he would eliminate in order to address the deficit, and all Ryan could come up with was repealing the remaining stimulus and TARP funds. Ryan was unable to name a program that affects the long-term deficit, and by advocating for the elimination of the stimulus he was endorsing a tax increase on the middle class.

However, at least Ryan was able to positively identify something that he would cut. Today, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) went on MSNBC and put on an even less impressive performance. Mike Barnacle begged Shadegg to identify just one specific program that he would axe, but Shadegg fell back on the conservative tactic of calling for an across the board cut on all programs:

BARNACLE: We have had an endless stream of members of Congress and the United States Senate on here over the past two or three years and whenever they are asked the question, ‘specifically, what would you cut to trim spending in the federal government,’ everybody agrees it’s a huge problem, we have to soak our faces in cement here on the set to prevent ourselves from laughing out loud at the non-answers we get. So my question to you, long-winded question here, is, can you please, I’m begging you, give me just one program you’d cut? We’ll start with just one program you’d cut.

SHADEGG: Well, there are lots of programs I would cut. I would begin by an across the board cut on all spending because I think we need to spread this…I’d say five percent across the board tomorrow on every single program, including defense, then you’d begin the process in the right direction.

Watch it:

This is extremely lazy of Shadegg, and shows that he’s fundamentally disinterested in actually addressing the deficit. An across the board cut makes no attempt to prioritize between vital, necessary programs that people depend upon and unnecessary, wasteful spending. It simply takes the same chunk out of everything. Is Shadegg willing to cut veteran’s health care or Social Security benefits by five percent tomorrow? How about border enforcement, food stamps, homeland security, the FBI, or national park funding? The list goes on and on.

But it’s not that hard to come up with something in the federal budget that actually can be cut. Here are some suggestions: the second engine for the F-35 and the C-17 transport plane, both of which the Pentagon doesn’t want. How about the $45 billion in subsidies we give to Big Oil companies? There’s a tax subsidy for NASCAR track owners that can certainly go. Agriculture subsidies and subsidies for ethanol, which both benefit huge corporations, need to be cut. There are also a handful of Army Corps of Engineers projects that are environmentally and economically disastrous that can certainly come to an end.

At the same time, revenue needs to be responsibly raised by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, ending the preferential tax treatment that hedge fund managers receive, reinstating the estate tax, cracking down on offshore tax havens, and closing the S-corp tax loophole. But Shadegg isn’t interested in grappling with any of the realities of the budget, instead opting for a talking point that proves nothing besides his own lack of credibility on the issue.