It's not surprising that, given her clear distaste for public education, she wouldn't support any sort of public educational system after the K-12 years either - including the public library. It makes me wonder where she does support use of broad taxes to benefit the few, though. Does she support taxes to fund college scholarships for minorities or people in need? What about rehabilitation programs for drug users? Funding for fire departments? ("Who needs 'em? I have a smoke alarm, a fire extinguisher, and I pray to God to bless this house. Let those firemen get a REAL job.") Whatever her real rationale is, it comes across as an inability to see beyond hers and her family's immediate needs - especially in this case, where a public library is a resource that she is always free to tap into but chooses not to (as opposed to, say, paying for social security although she is unable to make use of it until later in life).

Anyway, unless she has a problem with democracy on the whole, I think she can't make any real progress anyway: the public will decide what it feels is needed, whether she thinks she'll be able to take advantage of it or not. The reality is that not everything can be run like a private membership club (with fees), or else 99% of government programs wouldn't stand a chance.