The body budget — Barrett’s vernacular rendering of the technical concept allostasis — stands as one of the more generative bridging terms in contemporary depth-adjacent neuroscience, linking interoceptive prediction, affective experience, and psychiatric vulnerability within a single explanatory framework. Barrett’s corpus develops the concept with sustained systematicity: the brain’s body-budgeting regions issue continuous predictive signals governing metabolic, cardiovascular, hormonal, and immune resources, and the subjective residue of this regulatory labor is affect itself — the ambient pleasantness or unpleasantness that colors all experience. The term thus accomplishes a decisive theoretical move: it grounds feeling in physiology without reducing the former to mere epiphenomenon. Craig’s parallel work on interoception and homeostatic sentience offers an anatomical substrate, while Damasio’s earlier articulations of biological value and somatic marking constitute significant precursors, even if Damasio does not deploy the budgetary metaphor explicitly. The corpus also surfaces the clinical stakes of chronic budgetary imbalance — depression, anxiety, unexplained pain, and inflammatory disease are reframed not as categorically distinct disorders but as variant manifestations of sustained misbudgeting. Across these voices, a productive tension emerges between the mechanistic precision of allostatic modeling and the constructivist insistence that concepts, words, and social context participate in calibrating the budget itself.