You have the order wrong.
First, the money is spent.
Second, where the money goes is determined.
When the earmarks are going in, the money has already been spent. The amount of money being taken from his constituents
is not changed by an earmark.
The earmarks change where the money goes. If no earmarks, Obama gets to spend the money however he wants. If there is an earmark, it means that some of that money, instead of going to Obama to do whatever he wants with it, goes to a specific thing his constituent wanted instead of what Obama wants.
Very easy to understand.
2 steps.
1) Vote for spending - Yes or No?
(Ron Paul votes no)
After other people voted for spending, the money is spent, it’s gone from his consituents. Then step 2.
2) What does the money get spent on?
a) what Ron Paul’s constituents want?, or
b) what Obama wants?
Ron Paul puts in what his consistuents want. Because the money has already been spend, the earmarks have no effect on the total amount of money that is spent.
Do you understand this extremely easy process yet?
Actually, you are wrong.
The money is not spent. The money is appropriated.
You are also incorrect with you, “if not earmarks, Obama gets to spend whatever...”
Wrong. The House appropriates and can defund stuff from Obama if they wish.
Paul is just another politician.