One amendment calls for “defunding Obama’s teleprompters.” REALLY? What happened to “JOBS JOBS JOBS”? House Republicans, you are a ridiculous, silly, and completely useless lot. I propose we cut spending by eliminating all of your salaries, not to mention your health insurance coverage that I and all taxpayers are paying for. Get off the socialist teat, how about it?

Since the House Appropriations Committee introduced its stopgap budget proposal late last week, lawmakers have introduced more than 400 amendments that the chamber will be busy considering this week. Some amendments would restore funding for programs on the chopping block, others would make even deeper cuts to reduce the deficit and many reflect long-held partisan priorities.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), for example, has introduced an amendment that bars the General Services Administration from paying construction or leasing costs for any federal building in the nation’s capital. This situation could potentially lead to federal buildings that are leased, rather than owned by GSA, possibly defaulting on their lease agreements.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) has offered an amendment that would prohibit the president from using federal funds to pay for the salaries and expenses of his “czars” — the shorthand for White House officials who are appointed without Senate confirmation. However, Scalise lists the specific names of positions that cannot receive the funds. Conceivably, the President could simply rename those jobs.

Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-Ga.) amendment mandates that no federal funds may be spent on vacant federal properties. However, this could result in properties — such as the White Oak Federal Department of Agriculture building in Maryland, which is 90 percent finished but still unoccupied — being left vacant and unfinished.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) intended to introduce an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from being used to buy and maintain teleprompters for President Obama, but his spokesman told The Huffington Post that they couldn’t get the Congressional Budget Office’s score in time to submit it. The congressman plans to introduce it in the future though and anticipates it could save taxpayers $5 million.