The most watched economic numbers in the world – the US employment situation report – have landed. The headline numbers are that employment on non-farm payrolls grew by 80,000, which is roughly in line with ongoing weak growth over the previous three months, and unemployment remains at a worryingly high 8.2%.

Pick your narrative; you have two choices. The first is: yawn. These numbers were right in line with market expectations; there's no news here, please move along. The second is: ugh! The US economy has gone from adding 226,000 jobs per month in the first quarter, to adding only 75,000 in the second quarter. There had been some suspicion that the slowdown in recent months was due to seasonal aberrations. This report gives lie to that view. And if this slow growth continues, it seems likely that unemployment may slowly – albeit very slowly – start to drift up.

We know that the appointed political hacks on both sides will argue that these numbers somehow strengthen the case for their preferred candidate. But if we focus on the political implications, we miss the important questions. How will policymakers respond, and how should they respond?

Let's start with the Fed. It has a stated inflation target of 2% – not only is inflation below this target, the Fed also expects it to be below target for the next two-and-a-half years. Moreover, unemployment remains well above normal levels. Given its stated framework for monetary policy, it's baffling that the Fed hasn't acted more aggressively.

I think that may well be about to change. At its most recent Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, the Fed called out the labor market for special attention, saying:

"The committee is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustain improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability."

Translated from Fed-speak, that says: we're going to act if the labor market doesn't pick up. It hasn't yet, so it will soon.

The next scheduled policy meeting of the FOMC isn't due until 31 July, and this morning's report is easily the most important data to come out ahead of that meeting. My bet is that there's some sort of communication – a video conference or phone meeting, perhaps – occurring right now. So there's a good bet that we'll see a further round of quantitative easing, QE3, sometime tomorrow. If that forecast is wrong, then I'm sure they'll act by the time they next meet. While quantitative easing can be difficult to understand, the simplest version is just that the Fed will try to drive down long-term interest rates.

Next, Congress. With interest rates at zero, now is the ideal time for fiscal policy to provide some economic push. But the Republican-controlled Congress is doing nothing. Nada. Not a thing. They're running for re-election. Many congressional Republicans are worried that any sort of fiscal action will lead the Tea Party to target them. In any case, a strengthening economy would be good for a president they're determined to defeat.

I'm stunned to report that in both policy and political circles, most commentators take the fact that Congress will do nothing as simply a pre-ordained constraint. That's just not the right framing. In reality, it's an enormous dereliction of duty. Congressional leaders are important economic policy-makers, and they're turning their collective backs on conventional economics. It's cliched, but true: if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.

And then, there's the White House. President Obama continues to propose policies that he hopes will yield bipartisan support. The most recent Jobs Act contains many proposals that were originally Republican ideas. Some of them are small ideas; others are bigger. But they languish, and can't get any traction in Congress. Economists estimate that the various programs that Congress has refused to pass would have led another 1m jobs to be created.

Of course, the Romney campaign has opportunistically jumped on these latest numbers as proof of Obama's lack of economic leadership. But look a little harder: what is Romney's policy for reducing unemployment? I spent a whole day on his website trying to find it. Glib talk about a love for free markets and promising ever-greater tax cuts for the rich do not qualify as a serious plan.

When was it that all of us – professional economists, the media, politicians, Fed policy-makers, and the general public – became so inured to unemployment that we stopped talking about how to solve the problems in front of us? If only we devoted fewer minutes to pondering the implications for Romney v Obama, and spent that time instead talking about wage subsidies, training for the long-term unemployed, and monetary and fiscal policy, we might find a consensus on how to solve a problem that is causing so much pain.