Being selectively misleading seems to be an addiction for the Treasurer. Jim Chalmers used Question Time today to rattle off a list of experts supportive of his Budget, in particular negative gearing changes. Professor Richard Holden tops the list.

Chalmers quoted Holden approvingly, noting that the respected economics professor had described them as a move in the right direction. And, to be clear, Holden did say something positive about that particular measure. 

He called the phasing out of negative gearing, except for new construction, 'a good idea', noting that he wrote the McKell Institute report on which the policy was based.

But that's the trick, isn't it? Take the one favourable line in a column otherwise dripping with criticism, strip it of context, deploy it in Question Time, and hope no one checks the details.

Because Holden's post-budget assessment of what Chalmers delivered was brutal. It was a demolition job. It's all there in black and white, published in the Australian Financial Review.

He opened by calling the Budget 'a study in contradictions'. It contained, Holden wrote, 'reform but also regression; substance but also spin; savings but also spending; courage but also cowardice'.

That is hardly a rave review!

Holden mocked Chalmers' repeated use of the word 'responsible', noting the Treasurer used it six times in his budget speech. 'Not 'bold'. Not 'brave'. Not 'courageous'. Not 'visionary'. 

And Holden's verdict? 'Responsible is the Toyota Corolla plug-in hybrid of politics: it's not the worst thing, but it's hard to get excited about it.'

That is the economics expert Chalmers now wants to present as his character witness.

Holden was scathing about the government's cost of living politics, describing the $250 tax credit handed out to workers as 'a political bribe designed to send the 'we feel your pain' message.' He called it 'tiny', said it was 'swamped by bracket creep', 'provides no incentives', and costs 'about $3 billion a year'.

On capital gains tax, Holden was just as cutting. He warned that the budget 'makes yachts more attractive and productivity-enhancing investment less attractive for wealthier Australians'. He attacked the hypocrisy of taxing only real capital gains while allowing workers' wages to be eaten away by bracket creep. 'Surely,' he wrote, 'a 'responsible' and 'reforming' government would do away with that conceit'.

And on the broader fiscal picture? No comfort there either. Holden said the budget 'leans almost exclusively on the NDIS reforms' to contain spending growth, with government spending remaining historically high. His summary was brutal: 'The politics is the policy.'

That line should sting, because it captures this budget and this Treasurer rather perfectly.

The negative gearing change may well be a move in the right direction. Holden thinks so, because he designed it and Chalmers copied it. But Labor also went to the last election saying it wouldn't do this. The PM couldn't have been more explicit, even saying that if you cut negative gearing rents will go up.

Now, having broken a clear promise not to reform negative gearing, Chalmers wants applause for the policy and absolution for the lie that underpins it.

Holden, on the other hand has been a consistent negative gearing reform advocate since 2015. Chalmers has adopted his idea verbatim, but he'd rather ignore the economics expert's scathing assessment of the budget writ large.