My 1998 article (Levinson 1998) provides evidence suggesting that states with strict balanced budget rules have more volatile business cycles. In that article, I subjected the findings to numerous robustness checks. I used two measures of business cycle volatility, two measures of balanced budget rule stringency, and two measures of state size. I tried dropping unusual states, using only the fifteen largest and fifteen smallest states, and examined different periods of time separately. In most (but not all) specifications, I found that large states with strict balanced budget rules had more volatile business cycles. In their clear and careful replication of that article, Krol and Svorny (2007) present even more robustness checks. They add two new measures of cyclical volatility, an alternative measure of state size, and an alternative classification of balanced budget rule stringency. In some specifications, they also find that large states with strict balanced budget rules had more volatile business cycles; however, in some other specifications, they find results that differ from mine. First, Krol and Svorny (2007) use as the measure of volatility the standard deviation of quarterly first differences in incomes, instead of the standard deviation of the deviations (residuals) from predicted long-run income growth that I used. Unlike my results, they find the key coefficient statistically insignificant (column 2 of their table 2). This is not unexpected. Variation in quarterly fluctuations (e.g., first differences, as used by Krol and Svorny) will be smaller than variation in deviations from long-run growth (e.g., residuals from a deterministic trend, which I used). If strict budget Public Finance Review Volume 35 Number 4 July 2007 545–549 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/1091142107301758 http://pfr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com