Alright, I can play guitar and sing at once, but being one humanoid life-form, I can't do a full-band at once without looking like an idiot. Anyway, I agree with Mr. Elton John's thoughts on lip-syncing("Anyone who lip-synchs in public onstage when you pay 75 pounds to see them should be shot."), and while nobody is going to be paying £75 or $110 to see me anytime soon, I still do agree that using them is asinine. On the other hand, both They Might Be Giants and The All-American Rejects, two bands I like, used backing tracks in addition to their vocals and instruments before each getting more band members than the two they each started with, and if my memory serves, Buckethead uses full backing tracks except for his guitar, but he's Bucket-mothereffing-head, he's good enough to get away with that.

In short, if I'm not lipsynching or miming to my guitar, is it cheap to use a backing track for bass and drums if I can't find a bassist and a drummer?

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
No, and most people will be impressed if you played and recorded those parts too.
No gods, no countries, no masters.
More guitar, less Ultimate-Guitar.
Be Serious.
Shorties represent!
Ibanez SZ520/Ibanez ORM-1/Ibanez RG7321/Pocket POD/Crate GX/Boss HM-2
Marnie Stern mostly uses backing tracks. Even some of her guitar parts are looped.
My gear:
Flannel shirt
No way sheriff fatman (Carter USM anyone?)- backing tracks are cool + to my mind better suited to smaller venues than a full band anyway.

+ You don't have to tolerate a bassist and drummer
+ You know at least two of the instruments will not make a mistake during the performance
+ You get all the cash
+ Extra kudos if you recorded the backing tracks yourself

When I've seen guitarists/singer doing the same thing I have always been impressed at what they have done and how they made it all sound.

Actually, I've convinced myself - I'm gonna delete my band wanted ad!