THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT

And it is easily affordable if you take off your Pentagon colored spectacles and seriously look at how much money is wasted on our Imperial war machine.

Much of our tax money, on both the federal and state levels, is funneled toward activities that are literally killing people. Instead of dismissing "health care for all" as an appealing-but-unachievable dream, we need to talk about how we can shift our overall funding priorities from a framework of death and destruction to one of life and healing.

In mid-February, the Obama administration released its 2017 budget proposal, in which almost $623 billion is allocated to the Pentagon and related spending. The Pentagon alone snags $583 billion, receiving a $2 billion raise over last year, according to a National Priorities Project analysis.

Less than 2 percent of Pentagon funds would go toward "fighting ISIS." (The idea that ISIS can be effectively "fought" is, of course, a highly problematic prospect - but even if you think it can, that's not where your taxes are flowing.)

Plus, the 2017 budget proposal includes a $59 billion Pentagon slush fund, which allows the military to break congressionally set caps on its spending over the course of the year.

These aren't new developments: The Pentagon has long eaten up the majority of our federal discretionary budget - and those funds don't even include treatment for the veterans whose lives have been harmed by this system.

Of course, all this Pentagon money isn't simply sitting idly in government coffers. According to a 2015 Physicians for Social Responsibility report, the "global war on terror" has left 1.3 million dead in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan alone - and that's a conservative estimate.

Beyond Pentagon funding, the administration's 2017 budget calls for $19 billion for nuclear weapons and related expenses. In fact, President Obama recently proposed launching a vast nuclear "modernization" process, which would expand the US's arsenal, spending $1 trillion over 30 years. According to an analysis by Stephen Kinzer at The Boston Globe, the proposal would include the development and purchase of "1,000 new missiles with adjustable nuclear capacity, 100 new long-range bombers, and a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines." Kinzer cites former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who warns that if the expansion plan goes through, international disputes would be "more likely to erupt in nuclear conflict than during the Cold War."

Our military can kill those others 50 ways before Sunday. But those of us being protected by our military better not get sick, or hungry or have trouble with our water systems, there just ain't no money to pay for those problems.