Well, I was not referring to paying the state, which is a given, while paying to the same federal gov. the state separated from seem inconsistent with secession. Yet there are more views on this. An since you asked me to explain why i said "the Federal government has made states so dependent upon them that secession seems untenable," then i responded based upon a presumed scenario of it. Such as "Instead of paying taxes to the federal government, Californians would keep that money in the state."
Yet being able to provide all that the Fed does would be quite challenging, and as i clarified, the level of dependency upon the Fed makes secession seem untenable - unless citizens were willing to pay (and pray) the price.
No, you don’t get it. The states will form new alliances and there will be a new federal government. They will have a legislature that have to deal with those social programs that are legacy. The may get rid of them or fund them. There is no financial reason to not break up the USA. The point is the people will now have say going forward and a chance to get rid of or correct these social programs.