Is Direct Service to the Poor Needed?

I was reading in Sachs (I am somewhat a glutton for punishment) and came across this statement (pg. 265): "Racial discord plays a critical role in determining beliefs about the poor. Since minorities are highly over-represented amongst the poorest Americans, any income-based redistribution measures will redistribute particularly to minorities...It seems people are more willing to withstand high rates of taxation if they know that their taxes are paying for programs that help people like them..."

I have always prided myself on being open-minded about race and about homeless people (or the poorest of the poor). I tend to agree with Sachs that 'taking care of the poor' (helping them out of poverty traps) will increase global prosperity and environmental health as well as increase global security. But then I read that statement in Sachs and I began wondering if I would personally vote to increase taxes in this country in order to fund social welfare programs. No. I don't think I would. Why should I let the government take my hard-earned cash and give it to some deadbeat Latin American, or American Indian, or.... you can see the disconnect.

I think there is a need for individual, direct service to the poor and disadvantaged--especially in one's own country--because it encourages sympathy. If, through offering direct service to the needy, I begin to see poor people as people who need help instead of minorities who need help, I will feel more inclined to act politically to change my government's priorities and maybe a collective government change will save the world.

Along with that, I completely agree with McKibben who says that Americans have too little community. He suggests one way to fix that is to do volunteer work or to join a group. If I join a group who is dedicated to helping the disadvantaged directly, then I have found a community that can support me as well.