There was a big push in the 1990s to give more control to the states instead of the federal government. That meant more money is controlled by the states. Many programs were switched from being funded by the federal government, to having the federal government send the money to the states, and then the states pay for the programs.
When the budget crunch came, many of these programs had intense pressure to stop increases in funding on the federal level. But with inflation, and with population growth, the amount of money the programs cost has increased. Thus there is an imbalance which the states now must pay for themselves.
Unfortunately most states are too small to withstand considerable deficits. They cannot get the funding to survive so much debt. Thus they need to raise taxes in times of recession and can (if they choose) cut taxes in boom times. Thus you end up with your situation - the state hurting you when you most need the money.
If the control had been kept in the federal goverment, then the states would have been able to survive this without raising taxes, and the federal government would be able to handle the debt swings.
I'm not saying that state control is bad, but this is one of the unfortunate side effects that we must deal with to have more local control.