Warsh worried about the efficacy of continuing extraordinary monetary policy accommodation. Bernanke would write of Warsh's views in the debate over QE2, "Kevin Warsh had substantial reservations. He was one of my closest advisers and confidants, and his help, especially during the height of the crisis in the fall of 2008, had been invaluable. He had supported the first round of securities purchases, begun in the midst of the crisis. Now that financial markets were functioning more normally, he believed that monetary policy was reaching its limits, that additional purchases could pose risks to inflation and financial stability, and that it was time for others in Washington to take on some of the policy burden. . . . As he had promised, Kevin voted in favor but, the following week he delivered a speech in New York and published an op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" that reflected his reservations. He argued that monetary policy alone could not solve the economy's problems, and he called for tax and regulatory reforms aimed at increasing productivity and longer-term growth. I agreed that other Washington policymakers should take more responsibility for promoting economic growth. Federal spending on infrastructure projects such as road buildings, for example, could have helped make our economy more productive in the longer term while putting people back to work right away. Yet nobody expected anything to happen on the fiscal front or in other areas that Kevin highlighted, either. The reality was that the Fed was the only game in town. It was up to us to do what we could, imperfect as our tools might be. . . . I never questioned Kevin's loyalty or sincerity. He had always participated candidly and constructively, as a team player, in our deliberations. And I was grateful that he had voted for the second round of asset purchases despite his unease. I saw his public comments more as an indictment of policymakers outside the Fed than as an attack on the Feb policies. Kevin would leave the Board three months later, but not because of any policy disagreement. We had agreed when he was appointed in 2006 that he would stay for about five years. We remain close to this day.”