He already lost his plum chairmanship, and most observers expect him to get the minimum sanction from the House: an admonishment. His violations in isolation don't seem to merit any more than an admonishment. But do you let someone off with the lightest punishment possible even as he continues to thumb his nose at the entire process? I have a hard time squaring that circle.
Rangel has admitted he made some mistakes, and he corrected them. But along the way he's bad-mouthed the committee, made a spectacle of himself and the hearing process, impugned the reputations of those sitting in judgment of him, and made clear that his only concern is himself and not the good of the House. You have to take that into account when meting out his punishment.