Your article certainly didn't say that...here's what it said:
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever [u]on the other 5%.[/u]
What the article is questioning is the change in terminology from "tax credit" to "tax cut." It's still a "tax cut" (or "tax credit" if you will) on the bottom 95%.
Seems you're not being truthful, or your a poor reader.
This is actually a decent point. 'Course when were talking about the top 5% vs the bottom 95% we're talking pure populist politics. When that's measured against the last ten years where the top 2-3% have absorbed almost all the country's growth (see my plentiful other posts and links on this subject) It's not too surprising that populist politics came up, now is it?
See the chart in the link you provided? Notice how the numbers start at 250,000/year? What exactly is your definition of "middle class"?