Government use of tax incentives to grow or rebuild an area should be used only after careful evaluation of the effect such program would have on the specific area. When a major disaster occurs in a state, the federal and state governments have a few options to support recovery in the area. One form of recovery that is being used more often is that of a tax incentive. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the federal and state governments in Louisiana tried to use tax incentives as a blanket method of recovery in the New Orleans area. Success of tax incentives after other disasters encouraged the government to use a similar program without careful analysis that demonstrated other methods of recovery would be more effective. The failure of the government to consider how the incentives would affect the victims in the New Orleans area after the storm created a sense of recovery that ultimately backfired, causing recovery to occur slower in the area. Should the government continue to use tax incentives frequently, and it looks like it will, some consideration of the area should be used to deliver the most effective recovery. The issue comes down to whether the power to destroy can also be used as a power to rebuild. Using the employment, tax obligation, and population data combined with the Federal and Louisiana statutes specifically enacted and revised to deal with major disasters, it is clear that policy decisions greatly affected the recovery of the area. Specifically, looking at the statutes used to alleviate victims' suffering with tax obligations by tax breaks, the laws could only minimally help the majority of the population in the area that either did not have tax obligations due to the low economic state of the area or not help people that did not benefit from the tax incentives since many people did not own property. Government is responsible for behaving in such a way that is most beneficial to its citizens. After the Katrina disaster, many people could not take advantage of the tax incentives, which shows the lack of government consideration of the effects its poor decision making would have on its citizens. Since tax incentives seem to be the pattern that government will use to alleviate suffering after disasters, it should adhere to a responsibility to determine which tax incentive will be best for its citizens. The government should have policies in place before disasters that can help citizens in different areas of the state. Should more legislation become necessary as a result of a disaster, government should tailor the recovery plan to the specific area that needs the help. Using this method to encourage recovery will get many of its citizens back home and on the path to becoming productive citizens as soon as possible.